G.R. No.

209655, January 14, 2015

People vs. Tibayan

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee Palmy Tibayan and Rico z.

Puerto, accused-appellants

Facts:

Tibayan Group Investment Company, Inc. (TGICI) is an open-end investment

company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC
conducted an investigation on TGICI and its subsidiaries. In the course thereof, it
discovered that TGICI was selling securities to the public without a registration
statement in violation of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as "The Securities
Regulation Code," and that TGICI submitted a fraudulent Treasurer's Affidavit before
the SEC.

Resultantly, the SEC revoked TGICI's corporate registration for being

fraudulently procured.  The complainants were enticed to invest in TGICI due to the
offer of high interest rates, as well as the assurance that they will recover their
investments. After giving their money to TGICI, private complainants received a
Certificate of Share and post-dated checks, representing the amount of the principal
investment and the monthly interest earnings. Upon encashment, the checks were
dishonored, as the account was already closed, prompting private complainants to bring
the bounced checks to the TGICI office to demand payment. At the office, the TGICI
employees took the said checks, gave private complainants acknowledgement receipts,
and reassured that their investments, as well as the interests, would be paid. However,
the TGICI office closed down without private complainants having been paid and, thus,
they were constrained to file criminal complaints against the incorporators and directors
of TGICI.

In their defense, accused-appellants denied having conspired with the other

TGICI incorporators to defraud private complainants. Particularly, Puerto claimed that
his signature in the Articles of Incorporation of TGICI was forged and that since January
2002, he was no longer a director of TGICI. For her part, Tibayan also claimed that her
signature in the TGICI's Articles of Incorporation was a forgery, as she was neither an
incorporator nor a director of TGICI.

Issue:

Are the accused appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of
the RPC in relation to PD 1689.
Ruling:

Yes, the accused- appellant area GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of

Syndicated Estafa

The revised Penal Code qualifies estafa as, that there must be a false pretense
or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions;  that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud;  that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and  that, as a
result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

In the present case, all the elements of Syndicated Estafa, committed through a
Ponzi scheme, are present, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI
comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellants, made false
pretenses and representations to the investing public — in this case, the private
complainants — regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI in
order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations were
made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same,
private complainants invested their hard earned money into TGICI; and (d) the
incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with the private complainants'
investments, obviously to the latter's prejudice.

Hence, syndicated estafa was commited by the accused-appelant.